Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'retrieve' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and there are no side effects implied. However, the description does not disclose what happens when the ID is not found (e.g., error behavior), nor does it specify the structure of the 'detailed information' returned. While the core behavior is clear, the lack of error handling or response details is a gap for a retrieval tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that states the action, target, and identification method. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, nor does it mention potential errors or pagination (though not applicable). The lack of an output schema means the description should at least hint at the return structure. The description is adequate for a simple operation but leaves the agent guessing about the response format, which is a notable gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% coverage of the parameter, describing 'id' as a 'Stable canonical course identifier or alias (1-256 characters)'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat schema info.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' with a clear resource ('detailed information for a specific disc golf course') and the method of identification ('by its unique ID or alias'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_courses (which implies search), find_courses_near (location-based), and get_recent_updates (updates). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'by its unique ID or alias' clearly implies that this tool is for when the caller already knows a specific identifier, while alternatives like search_courses or find_courses_near are for discovering courses. This provides clear context without explicitly naming alternatives, but the implication is strong enough to guide selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.